Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
''I suspected you were in agreement with Joanne Pezzullo's spurious conclusions''
I'm sorry -- I guess I need some tutorial assistance to understand the disagreement here.
Could you state what is the 'spurious conclusion' that you presume I have made?
I SAID
''This trial shows that not only the Bolton but the others named in these transcripts were thought of as 'Portuguese' by many of not only their neighbors -- but also of the neighbors in South Carolina who came to testify for them.''
1]There is testimony of many people who said Boltons claimed to have Portuguese/Spaniard ancestry. That is a fact - not a conclusion.
2]There are a number of facts introduced as evidence that Solomon Bolton was not 'legally' treated as a 'negro' in South Carolina or in Tennessee - that is a fact - not a conclusion.
I did not conclude that Spencer Bolton, born in 1735 on the Pee Dee River was living with his family and apparently one of the 'mixed families' in the milita report dated 1754, although I could have.
I did not conclude that Solomon Bolton was white, black, yellow, Portuguese, Spaniard, Indian, etc., although I could have. It was not a 'spurious' conclusion as it was not MY conclusion but that of their neighbors.
Could you perhaps state what it is that you thought I had concluded and then we can discuss if it was 'spurious' or not.
Notify Administrator about this message?
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/melungeon/messages/25425.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|